Misplaced Pages

I think blocking makes more sense. Renaming would created edits that appear to be attributed to (WMF-retired) when they were originally (WMF). That labeling could confuse people who look at those edits after the fact. I don't see any reason why the official accounts should be used after the end of official employment, even with a -retired designation. I'd suggest it is better to simply lock the accounts so they can't be used any more. Dragons flight (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Another related case is Sross (Public Policy) (talk · contribs) - I believe his employment on that project ended in September.Maybe we should have a category for WMF accounts? D'oh, Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff  Chzz  ►  14:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, we deal with this internally: I had that account globally locked yesterday. She has no access to it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to back up Philippe (ingrained habit!); my staff account is indeed no longer active, and I cannot log into it. This account is my personal, volunteer account, which is cited on User:Christine (WMF)'s userpage, and also disclosed on my personal user page. FWIW, I'd also oppose a rename for User:Dragons flight's reasonings. Kethryvis (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's no problem then. Is there a standard procedure for dealing with the retired/expired accounts of Wikimedia staff, and is there someone at the Foundation who is responsible for closing/locking out these accounts? From what I've gleaned from the Steward handbook, it's not possible for non-stewards to verify that an account has been locked, so it would be reassuring to know that there is some sort of formal process that makes sure that this bit of bookkeeping is done when necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a (semi)standard procedure. Office IT closes the accounts, and those with advanced privileges are referred to me for a decision. In some cases, users came to the Foundation with certain rights, and they should leave with those. Not everyone has the (WMF) accounts, and so there are a few (really old) accounts that take some manual work and decision making. As we've grown, we havne't always been great about this, but the current process seems to work pretty well. The hard part is all the one-off accounts and privileges for closed wikis, fundraising systems, etc. Extra eyes are always welcome. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi TenOfAllTrades. Non-stewards can verify if an account has been locked using a number of methods. Every user has read-only access to Special:CentralAuth, which will tell them the status of a global account. There is also the Toolserver SUL tool which also has the status on the left hand side. Finally there is the global account log on Meta-Wiki which is searchable like all the other public logs. Hope it helps. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Or you can install NAVPOP and just hover over the account link. :) Amalthea 10:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• What about MGodwin (talk · contribs)? Apparently he stepped down as general counsel last year, but his account still has admin privs. As far as I can tell, he hasn't made any admin actions since leaving the WMF, but he has edited occasionally, so it doesn't appear that his account is locked. Jenks24 (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  FYI, User:MGodwin (formerly Mikegodwin) was granted adminship "as a Foundation decision" at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Mikegodwin. –xeno 16:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, per , Mike's staff rights were removed upon his departure. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming this, Philippe. What (if anything) should be done as regards his administrative permissions? With the utmost respect to Mr. Godwin, the permissions were granted by the Foundation after the community had just over 24 hours to opine on the RFA he submitted. While it is a not a pressing matter (given that he uses the permissions rarely if ever), it does strike me as a matter of good housekeeping to clarify whether the permissions should be retained or removed following his departure. –xeno 14:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Its 2.5 years since Mike used an advanced permission but he continues to make the occasional edit every month or so. I'd say there was probably no risk leaving him an admin but since he never passed an RFA its a bit messy so some guidence from the office would be useful. Spartaz 18:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't look urgent. Long term though IMHO the cleanest resolution would be for him to either voluntarily turn in the bit, or if he was still interested in the access voluntarily run an RFA. As a rule it does seem that adminship granted solely due to his employment shouldn't carry on after that employment has ended without at least reaffirming the communities support.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Urgent, nah. But as a general practice, WMF-granted rights should be removed by the WMF at the end of employment. Mike's rights were granted by the WMF because of his employment status, and should have been removed (both +sysop and +staff) when he left the foundation. I think it would resolve the issue if Philippe were to see to it that his admin bit was removed as well. Nathan 22:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of precidence, I think WMF should weigh in. But in all honesty, if the person left their position in good standing, I can't see why we wouldn't accept their tenure at the foundation as an alternative means for adminship. He obviously isn't a threat to hurt the project which is the core issue of an RfA. If he were to run for adminship, I can't see any reason why anybody would oppose---he has a 2.5 year record of not breaking anything. I also don't think somebody who served the community for so long and so worthily should be subject to this process... and I mean that seriously. Most people who run for admin can do so anonymously. Thus, if they are ripped to shreds in the RfA, it is unlikely to negatively affect them professionally. But a former WMF member has their real name associated with their accounts; if they "run" for RfA, they run the risk of people with vendetta's criticizing them in a public manner in a way that might impact them professionally. For this reason, IMO, if somebody has been trusted with the bit while working for WMF and they leave in good standing, I see no reason to remove the bit.---Balloonman 04:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I on the other hand see no reason why tenure at the WMF should confer adminship, much less why it should survive leaving the WMF. I can think of at least one current WMF employee who ought to be desysoped right now. Malleus Fatuorum 05:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

But that wouldn't stop us from removing the bit afterwards---I know easier said than done. But I think this is a scenario where the WMF could chime in and say, "This person is leaving in good standing, has been an asset to the community, and thus gets to keep the bit." They could also say, "Nah, we're removing it." But I think it is a situation where the foundation should make the call. I just can't get worked up about this as I can't see anybody seriously objecting to Mike's having the bit.---Balloonman 15:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the WMF would want to make those sorts of comments about departing staff members, which might open up a can of worms. Mr Godwin had the permission granted to him because he was legal counsel. He isn't anymore, so he should resign or the WMF should request the removal of his rights. The local permission should arguably have been removed when the global staff userright was created anyway. As to serious objection, there seems little point going into it, but suffice it to say that I would oppose an RfA for Mr Godwin. WJBscribe (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It was entirely appropriate for Mike to be granted sysop rights due to his position as counsel. However, he no longer holds that position, so the sysop rights should be removed. If he should desire the rights again, he can apply in the normal way.--SPhilbrickT 12:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So how about this, instead of just people who used to work at WP, senior staff members of the project can keep the bit (assuming they left WMF in good standing.) Either way, this is, IMHO, a perfect situation to IAR. I see zero risk in his keeping the bit.---Balloonman 15:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is no risk in him keeping the bit, and I honestly don't mind if he does or not, but with a total of 300-odd edits I think it is a near certainty that an RfA would fail (and just reading this conversation, I can see few other obvious reasons why he would get opposed). Jenks24 (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

RfA isn't just about determining whether someone would be a danger to the project if they were given admin tools. We expect that all prospective administrators have enough experience of the project and our community to judge when administrative tools should and should not be used. If an administrator doesn't have that experience then their uses of the tools may be inappropriate even if they are well-intentioned. Mike Godwin has a very low edit count (335) and has done a total of three admin actions, all related to his legal work. I really don't think an RfA has any chance of passing. Hut 8.5 23:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Balloonman here. While I do think that if he went through an RfA it would fail, there's pretty much zero risk to his account having the tools for the reasons Baloonman stated. I think he can be trusted to keep the tools (although I have no opinion whether he should or not) regardless of experience; he knows better than to misuse them (intentionally or not, in my opinion, as I think he would have the clue level needed to know to ask if it was a sketchy situation for using them). Ks0stm 23:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason behind having a bigger edit history is because we generally can't get to know somebody after so few edits. We generally can't tell if somebody has the proper temperment/attitude to be an admin, and can't tell if they know the culture/policies. In this case, those issues are not true. We know who he is. We know that he knows Misplaced Pages, probably better than most people. Despite his low edit count, he has been consulted on numerous ethical and legal issues facing WP... online, via private correspondence, and at the WMF. There is zero doubt that he knows Misplaced Pages, the culture, and the environment.---Balloonman 23:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of aministrative privileges

Dear all,

I have been on a rather long wiki break, and have returned to my administrative privileges having been suspended. I totally understand the reasons given: that administrative access was removed simply due to inactivity. However I am ready to return to activity, and would appreciate my account status being restored.

Many thanks! ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 17:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz 20:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi guys. Could you please take over my tools. I'm done using them, need some R&R now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)